TERRIBLE IDEA. Look at all of the weasel words in the first clause!
If they really want to do this, I’d suggest that the statute read, “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I do not see weasel words. I see legislators working hard to prevent the courts form perverting their meaning.
Sad, really, but it has some effect. Look at the Wisconsin amendment 25. seems very clear:
[As created Nov. 1998] “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.” [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]
Yet here is what the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled:
“The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute. This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the statute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01-0350.”
It is very rare for a court to find a law passed by a legislature to be an “unreasonable” exercise of police power.
I'm no attorney, but as I understand this term, it essentially means "No ifsies, no backsies, no shi# - we mean it", and no liberal legal mumbo jumbo can be used to redefine the law.
I agree. Keep it super simple. NH has a RKBA clause in its Constitution.